Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over

[Democracyinkind]

29. "sounds" "feels"

It may "sound" and "feel" to you how it may - No legislation proposed in the US ever seriously attempted to eradicate poverty. To claim such a thing is simply nonsense. Maybe Johnson's Great Society had that motivation to a certain extent (certainly in the way it was marketed, but even there, the motive of aleviation is predominant) but it was never funded to the extent that it could achieve such a thing.

It may "sound" and "feel" like a lot to you - the question is whether i) it was a high enough amount to structurally influence poverty rates in the US (mildly so) and ii) the goal of said amount was to put an end to poverty (not).

You're pushing this same old, tired and bourgeois logic: We've spent X (!!! the horror!!) on poverty. There's still poor people. Obviously, the poor can't be helped, something's wrong with them, let's leave it altogether, that's just how the world is, some are meant to be poor. Which, strikingly, is always parroted by the not so poor.

Hipoint was right. It is a pretty boring argument. One that everyone on DU has heard before, when discussing the ridiculous economic worldview of the teabaggers.